On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> The fact that public opinion is turning against the war is good news, but
>> folks should note the fact that the antiwar "movement" has not been a
>> factor in this switch in public opinion.
>
> Yeah, I'd noticed that and was trying to figure out what in meant. It's
> not just that the antiwar "movement" hasn't been a factor, it's virtually
> disappeared even as public opinion was turning in its favor. Why?
The second way of looking of this, which is not incompatible with the first, is that it's a matter of time, truth and military realities: the objective context of the public conversation.
Time changes everything. The main argument against invading Iraq was always the quagmire argument: that no matter how awful Saddam was, invading would make things worse. It would create massive problems for which we had no solution.
In the beginning that argument could be dismissed as Cassandra pessimism, no matter how many bad things came up. The other side could always say, This is just the short term.
But eventually, implacably, the short term ends. And then the same argument begins to look inescapably right. Not because things have changed, but because nothing has. And that was our argument. That it wouldn't get better, that it would just get worse, that we couldn't fix it. Eventually becomes impossible to believe people who say every month that we're turning the corner. And the people who say it lose credibility.
[In passing, I would repeat that it is mass concentrated yakking that has kept this news. Remember when we are all afraid it would vanish like Afghanistan has? It is certainly not the news media taking the lead. It has consistently followed. The right may affect the news media through organized letter bullying campaigns. But the left affects them by haranguing them personally every day at every social gathering and online. We share their world.]
And lastly, and probably most importantly for the materialists among us, the military has reached its limit in no mysterious way. Everyone said they'd run out of troops by this Spring. And they have. And they know it. Their troops are frazzled, and they can't take them out. They are beginning, in the quietest way possible, to panic. Drawing down troops soon is an absolute necessity that cannot be put off. And the only way that will be possible is with an exit strategy. So some of them are beginning to say the sorts of things that would encourage people to think that way -- like that we might be fighting this war for the next 7-12 years. Generals are not naifs when it comes to public opinion. I think some of them consider making comments like this to be their duty. And behind the scenes, I think they are even more direct in indicating to the congressmen who pride themselves in being friends of the military that getting us a sizeable portion of us out is what the military needs. Which is why you have military-focused congressman coming on board. Which creates the image of a tipping point.
There's also one last thing, which might just have to do with Walter Jones, but maybe not, and that's casualties. They aren't news anymore. But for a military-focused congressman like him, each one in his district is a traumatic event he attends. Perhaps it only takes a couple of dozen to raise the bar of asking Was this really worth it? high enough so that it can't be reached.
The National Review recently ran an article saying that everything the French -- synecdoche for the anti-war movement -- said about Iraq was true. That it's all turned out just like we said. It just takes time to prove it. Time -- and keeping people noses shoved in it.
Michael